text:
Can a human be blown away by jet engines of an A380?
Can a human be blown away by jet engines of an A380 at full throttle? If so what is the largest object that it can blow away and cause significant damage? Can it blow away another parked Airbus A380 and cause damage?  Can it perhaps blow away the A320 and cause damage?
If so what is the safest parking distance between aircraft, with regards to jet air at full throttle.  What are the safest recommendations?

Going out on a limb here, but yeah id say at full throttle they can.

The A380 engines (which are less powerful than the 777 engines) produce about 78-80,000lbs of thrust. Perhaps with some physics work you can calculate what mass and at what distance would be shifted.

There was a Mythbusters episode about this if memory serves. They built armored vehicles for the cast of a storm chaser show on Discovery and used a 747 (again, IIRC) to test them.

Absolutely. The jet engines used in airliners are quite powerful and can easily blow away human beings, vehicles and small aircraft. Other (large) airliners, not so much.
It depends on the aircraft's size, weight and distance from the engine actually. There are records of a F-16 being tipped over by a B-1B Lancer; as the thrust of an A380 engine is quite higher than that of the Lancer, the damage would be worse.
The minimum safe distance between the aircraft varies depending on the aircraft and engine type. For example, according to the Australian Civil Aviation Order 20.9 - Air service operations - Precautions in refuelling, engine and ground radar operations:

An aircraft engine shall not be started or operated:
...
(b)   within 8 metres (25 ft) of other aircraft;
... turbine engines, in addition, shall not be operated within the appropriate distance specified below of any other aircraft, fuelling equipment or exposed public areas which lie to the rear of and within a 15 degree arc either side of the exhaust outlet axis of that engine:

Minimum distance between aircraft for operation of engines; image from Civil Aviation Order 20.9 - Air service operations - Precautions in refuelling, engine and ground radar operations

I learned about that as a rookie liney when I watched slack jawed one of these hovering in the jet blast of a Vulcan at idle!

@Simon Are you talking about the missile? Your link goes to a Google image list

It does, @TomMcW, but one image is enlarged as the selected one. It's the top image on this blog page. Frankly, seeing that hovering would be quite a sight!!

@FreeMan None is selected on my phone, they're all thumbnails. But the missile seemed like the item common to all the pics. That would be rather impressive. That looks like it's pretty friggin heavy.

@TomMcW - sittin' at mah desk! Actually, I hardly ever SE on my phone except when I want to see an imgur image that work has blocked... an now, back to our regularly scheduled topic

@TomMcW Hi Tom, sorry, been working away and yes, wrong link.  It as indeed the trolley, unladen, like this one.

Here is a youtube clip from the Top Gear television show, where they show what the blast from a 747 engine can do to cars.
Top Gear jet engine blast demonstration
The answer is: yes, exhaust blast from a jumbo jet engine can do considerable damage, to a person or to a vehicle.

That video was the first thing I thought when I saw this question.

Manufacturers publish this kind of information in aircraft characteristics documents, as it is useful for airport planning and operational safety. You can find the A380 document here.
The document lists the exhaust danger area at max takeoff power. For the Trent 900, this extends 1800 ft aft of the nozzles, and the GP 7200 extends 1553 ft aft. Anything not bolted down should probably be removed from this area.
The document also lists exhaust velocities. At max takeoff power, for GP 7200 engines, the exhaust velocity exceeds 105 mph out to 724 feet, and 65 mph out to 1090 feet. Higher velocities are not labeled.
On Physics.SE, it's been calculated that 45 mph is enough to move a person, and 70 mph could start to overcome gravity (depending on orientation). So if you don't want to be blown over, it's probably best to stay out of the exhaust danger zone.
This paper suggests 95 mph is enough to tip some high profile trucks, trailers, and buses. 200 mph is enough to tip most cars, vans, and pickups. If the vehicles are light, much less than this could be sufficient.
Based on this info we know that at full power, large profile vehicles could be tipped over even at almost 750 feet behind the aircraft. Aircraft designed to fly at slower speeds or lighter aircraft could easily be picked up by these high wind speeds. Tornadoes have been known to move aircraft as large as a C-130.
Jet aircraft generally do not go to max takeoff power unless they are starting their takeoff. Engine speed is usually limited in ramp areas for safety. For engine run ups, the aircraft go to dedicated areas with jet blast deflectors.
Even at ground idle, the exhaust danger area extends 230-280 feet aft of the nozzles.
You may also want to consider temperatures, which can exceed 212 F up to 100 feet aft of the nozzles at takeoff power.

Can a human be blown away by jet engines of an A380 at full throttle?

yes Human will blown away without any doubt.

If so what is the largest object that it can blow away and cause significant damage?

Jet-Engines will have high thrust,it will easily blow away car in close proximity.

Can it perhaps blow away the A320 and cause damage?

If it blown form front then It will not blow away the another Flight bus it will give significant lift so that another aircraft will tilt little bit.

If so what is the safest parking distance between aircraft, with regards to jet air at full throttle. What are the safest recommendations?

As per the aviation rules no aircraft will be in full throttle in parking.
Full throttle will be applied Only while take off on runway.

Here's a person being blown away by an A320. You can test it out yourself at St Maarten, a lovely tropical island in the Caribbean! Park your car in the jet blast and see what it does.

I hope it is a joke when you mean test it out yourself. Getting blown away by a jet blast is dangerous and can result in severe injury or death.

As in: don't try this at home? It is of course quite obvious from the video that it is dangerous to stand there, but it is It is allowed to be there and to drive and park there - check out this video of the same spot when a B747 takes off, several parked cars can be observed. The island authorities leave it to everyone's own judgement.


text:
Would it be viable to use jet blast deflectors as a power source?
From an environmental point of view would installation of windmills just before jet blast deflectors provide enough power to power up all machinery at airports? How much of a reduction in reliance on fossil fuel sources of energy would that be? By how much would that reduce landing fees and could the energy provided at least power a mechanism that could tow All aircraft (including the Airbus A380 and the Boeing 747) during the entire taxi phase pre flight and post landing along with ALL airport machinery in busy airports like Heathrow

Windmills are a pretty viable way of generating electricity, even without jets. But they tend to keep them away from airports, for safety reasons.

+1 this is an entertaining question which I think could be objectively 'back of napkin' estimated but it likely should be broken up into smaller parts. Also the part 'reliance on dirty sources of energy' will require a country since many have split their energy usages drastically depending on local politics and definitions of clean energy.

@mins a system that uses both would even be much better

@Koyovis windmills could be designed with safety in mind for maximum energy harvest.  The volume of designs is limitless

windmills could be designed with safety in mind for maximum energy harvest.  The number of designs is limitless

@mins I assume this solution incorporates both the wind and the Heat factors i.e the turbine and some sort of heat exchange device?

The turbine blade would have to be very close to the entrance, at the curve or before the curve for maximum power and wind velocity otherwise great design

I fly a lot, and there are very few airports with jet blast deflectors, much less airplanes that power up near them. Usually they are only installed when roadways run near the end of runways, which isn't usually the case because of safety areas.

My thoughts exactly, @RonBeyer. KIND has 2 large-ish solar arrays that I believe are supposed to provide about 1/3 of the terminal's electricity needs (vague memory - no reference). They are low to the ground, occupy space that is otherwise unusable, and are a known quantity. Designing a turbine to ingest hot exhaust and produce electricity from it isn't impossible by any means, but certainly seems expensive for the relatively small use-case.

If you put the windmill on top of the airplane, you could generate energy for the entire flight!!

Even assuming an extremely busy airport, with one takeoff per minute on a runway, such a system would be able to collect energy for what, maybe 5 seconds out of the minute?  Because as soon as the jet engine spools up, the airplane moves away from the end of the runway.    The dispersoin of the jet blast means you'd only collect a fraction of the energy from it.  And of course, you'd need one system at each end of the runway, so each one would only be used half the time, on average.

A windmill is a turbine, so it's better to  build an optimized turbine. I've studied your idea and this draft design has come out:

The apparatus has these innovating characteristics:

Configurable for 2, 3 and 4 engine aircraft
Can be positioned exactly for optimal efficiency
Adjustable up or sideways for local constraints
Bird/snake anti-roasting protection (removable)
Simple and robust 50 or 60 Hz AC selection by adjusting engine thrust
Optional gas water extractor

For increased operation time, the apparatus can move with the airplane until a certain speed (configurable) is achieved (cable not included).

You may want to draw a few arrows on that diagram to indicate the forces working on your contraption. It looks like the device will move away from the airplane, rather rapidly, instead of following it. And that's no wonder. The forward impulse from the airplane has to match the reverse impulse of the air.

From an environmental point of view would installation of windmills just before jet blast deflectors provide enough power to power up all machinery at airports?

From an environmental point of view? Not sure what that has to do with providing power, but no, here's why: First, many airports do not have jet blast deflectors at the ends of runways or in a place that sees most of the jet blast.
Aside from that, windmills (wind turbines) can't spin at unlimited speed. Here's what happens one one goes too fast (small turbines have the same issue, but can stand wind speeds up to 100-ish mph). Turbines are designed such that they have an optimal output within some speed range, below that they don't generate much power, and above that they can get hot and fail, or have to be throttled back to stay in the power band.
So seeing as how you would need to have them close to the ground where they aren't useful for natural breeze, providing major power to the airport is not going to happen.

How much of a reduction in reliance on fossil fuel sources of energy would that be?

Why do you assume that the airport runs on fossil fuels? Many airports are running "green" initiatives, installing solar panels and bio-diesel reactors. They may also be purchasing renewable energy credits so that they try to get a good portion of the power used from renewable sources, such as wind farms.

By how much would that reduce landing fees and could the energy provided at least power a mechanism that could tow All aircraft (including the Airbus A380 and the Boeing 747) during the entire taxi phase pre flight and post landing along with ALL airport machinery in busy airports like Heathrow

Such a tow system would almost undoubtedly increase landing fees. You are looking at it purely from a fuel savings view, but lets look at it from other angles:

Cost: There would be an extremely high acquisition cost, all the taxiways would have to be reworked to include this system. Even if it were an autonomous tow vehicles, the structure is not free. The tow's have to be created, programmed, vetted, certified, etc.
Maintenance: There is a lot of infrastructure to maintain, the tow vehicles, the electronic systems, mechanical systems, etc. This requires a full-time crew, and I'm sure they aren't going to work for free, plus enough on-hand spares to be able to quickly repair the system when it goes down.
Logistics: You have to have the tow mechanisms in place to catch the aircraft as they come off the runway. This means enough tow mechanisms to tow all aircraft and transit back to the runway possibly empty to catch another aircraft.
Other issues... Aircraft can't just shut down engines right after they land. Many engines have cool-down times before they can be shut down. They also can't just fire them up at the end of the runway, there are start-up times and warm-up periods. Aircraft also need to power systems on the way to the runway, air conditioning, avionics, hydraulics, etc.

Honestly these tow systems are not economically viable at this time. Aircraft are extremely fuel efficient (although not on the ground), but they have procedures to mitigate fuel expense on the ground. They shut down unused engines, turn off anything that isn't required, and reduce power consumption.
If you are looking for ways for the airport to save energy or generate it themselves, then solar panels or these tiles that generate electricity are more viable.

An airport uses about 20 MW of electricity, on average. That is to say, averaged over 365 days, 24 hours a day. Your windmill will have a peak production of about 1MW. And that's for very short periods only. Pilots, if only for economic reasons, don't run engines at high power unless they actually want to move the plane. That means they operate close to your windmill for short periods only.
It's far more economical to put solar panels between all the runways and taxiways. There are large areas there where you can't put anything significantly above ground level, as wings will travel over this area. But as they're not intended to be driven on, these areas can have solar panels as long as they're anchored to the ground. Solar panels can put out 100MW per square kilometer during the day.

far better to put those solar panels on the roofs...

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Can a paying passenger ride in one of the cabin jumpseats?
Is there any regulation that prohibits passengers from using a cabin jumpseat (normally used by cabin crew) if there is no passenger seat available? Like the two shown below.
In other words, can any of the cabin jumpseats be sold? (Given that cabin members are fewer than the available jumpseats of course.)
(Source)

Pre-9/11 I rode in the jumpseat of an air Jamaica flight from Kingston to JFK, and also had a cockpit visit over the Atlantic on the Concorde

If you're talking about one of the jumpseats in the flight deck (as opposed to the ones FAs use in the passenger cabin,) then, no, it's definitely not allowed during flight, at least not in the U.S. or E.U. It may be allowed elsewhere, though.
The United States
Relevant regulations for the U.S.: 14 CFR 121.547 for domestic air carriers and 14 CFR 129.28 for foreign ones.
The regs are a bit too long to quote here, but, to summarize: You're not getting into the flight deck during flight unless you have a valid, FAA-approved reason to be there. The mentioned exceptions were mostly FAA, NTSB, airline, or manufacturer employees and, even then, only ones with legitimate safety or operational reasons to be there. It is also mentioned that the PIC retains the emergency authority to deny access to even the FAA/NTSB/etc. personnel in the interest of safety.
Apart from all of the aforementioned categories of people allowed "a crewmember" is listed separately as being allowed, of course.
Also, there's 14 CFR 121.557(a) which says:

In an emergency situation that requires immediate decision and action the pilot in command may take any action that he considers necessary under the circumstances. In such a case he may deviate from prescribed operations procedures and methods, weather minimums, and this chapter, to the extent required in the interests of safety.

This exception allows the pilot of a Part 121 operation to deviate from any Federal Aviation Regulation when it is required in the interest of safety. So, the Pilot-in-Command may allow you to sit in the flight deck if he deems it's necessary for safe operation of the aircraft. As such, this exception allows other pilots to access the flight deck in the very rare instances where one of the pilots falls ill and the pilot-in-command decides to get another (non-airline) pilot who happens to be on board to sit in the right seat to help out for the remainder of the flight.
See Pondlife's excellent answer here for more information regarding emergency authority of the pilot-in-command.
The European Union (EASA)
This answer over at travel.SE also mentions that CAT.GEN.MPA.135 is the relevant EASA (E.U.) regulation preventing passenger access to the flight deck during flight.
Exceptions
As a notable exception, this answer here at aviation.SE does mention that South Africa allows licensed pilots to visit the flight deck during flight and that you might even get to ride in the jump seat.
Conclusion: I need to visit South Africa. :)
Other Related SE Questions

Can a passenger request to visit the cockpit during a flight? (Aviation)
Can I get a photo with the pilots? (Aviation)
Can a child still visit the cockpit during flight? (Travel)
Can passengers visit the flight attendants' sleeping quarters? (Travel)

See the FAA FAR Here for the full regulations but it says:

(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section, each person on board an airplane operated under this part shall occupy an approved seat or berth with a separate safety belt properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing.

the regulations go on to talk about different things that make an approved seat but it does not really talk about jump seats in particular. There does not seem to be anything particularly forbidding it unless they are not considered an approved seat or berth (I'm still trying to find more on that).
For what it's worth, there could be an issue in allowing a passenger to use the jump seat (essentially buy that seat for the price or reduced price of a ticket) since it was not available to the other patrons at the time of ticket purchase.

Yes, it is possible. It happened to me on KLM, on a flight from Singapore to Amsterdam maybe 15 years ago. I had booked business, but KLM had overbooked and offered me to choose between a much later flight or economy. This was the Jakarta - Singapore - Shipol flight with only 8 business seats, operated with a 747 combi.
The economy seat was so small that I could only sit with my legs sticking out into the aisle. The flight was fully booked and I had no chance to get a decent seat. One flight attendant first tried to convince a petite lady in the first row of the cabin to swap places, but the lady refused. So the flight attendant offered me the jumpseat because it was the only one left with sufficient legroom.
For the landing I had to return to the regular seat, but that was okay because cabin service had ended and the flight attendants could no longer try to smash my kneecaps with their trolley.
Paying for business and sitting 10 hours in a jumpseat. That is how the airlines like it.

Wow. Did they at least compensate you for the downgrade?

@reirab: I hope so. I told the travel agency and they handled the case. My employer paid, so it was up to them to get a refund.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Where does Google Flights get its pricing information?
I was wondering if anyone knows how I can get flight data in mass.  Specifically, I'm looking for price, time, and airports involved.
Do you know where Google, Expedia, and the likes get their flight information from?

Hi, Jay. Unfortunately, this question is not really on topic here at [aviation.se]. Questions about airline pricing will generally be better suited to [travel.se]. Also, questions that are just asking for a data source are usually not considered on topic on StackExchange sites.

no problem I'll refrain from here on out.  Thanks for clearing that up.  I became skeptical once my questions weren't popping up in the Previously Asked column

Google bought an airline pricing optimization
company called ITA Software that has interfaces with the GDS systems.

cool, thanks! hh


text:
How does the nose of a plane self adjust down
I am not a Flat Earther. I understand that the plane's trim, speed and atmospheric pressure determine the plane's altitude. As the plane moves forward the Earth does indeed curve out from under it and the plane does indeed try to fly off into outer space and fails to do so as the air pressure becomes too thin for the trim and speed and so the plane constantly settles back to the correct altitude, the altitude that has enough atmospheric density for the trim and speed to stop the downward settling. Thus we have level flight.
Just one problem, even though the plane stays at one altitude, the nose seems as if it should gain small upward tilts that slowly accumulate into a serious problem. How is the nose, not the plane, following the curvature of the Earth?

Rather than look at it as trim, speed and atmospheric pressure, you should consider the four forces acting on the aircraft  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamics#Fundamental_concepts

How does the bow of a boat adjust when sailing across the ocean?  Why aren't boats that left San Francisco pointed up in the air when they reach Japan?   Same idea.

We know the earth is round, but because of the sheer scale, for all practical purposes you might as well consider it flat.  The curvature really only comes into play on truly straight line applications like radio waves and lasers.  Airplanes and pilots perceive it to be just as flat as any pedestrian or car driver would.

Please don't make more work for other people by vandalizing your posts. By posting on the Stack Exchange network, you've granted a non-revocable right, under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, for Stack Exchange to distribute that content (i.e. regardless of your future choices). By Stack Exchange policy, the non-vandalized version of the post is the one which is distributed. Thus, any vandalism will be reverted. If you want to know more about deleting a post please see: How does deleting work?

Good question! First practical detail to note would be that I doubt there is any airplane with such stability (without electronic aids etc) that you could left flying hands-off for long enough period to perceive effects of Earth curvature without other disturbances affecting flight path and attitude much more.
But lets take this as a theoretical problem: absolutely calm air, no disturbances, only curved Earth. The fact is that air density or pressure change is not the reason for curved path around the Earth. It would work even with constant air density (or pressure) all the way up. It is on the contrary the "automatic" pitch adjustment which goes first and as the pitch adjusts, flightpath follows it round around the Earth.
It is important to remember that actual pitch (or angle of attack) is result of balance of acting forces (gravity, lift of the wings and tailplane), it is in no way "conserved" due to inertia or whatever.
All starts with the mechanism how the pitch-wise stability of airplane works. For really nice and detailed explanation see "See How It Flies" by John S. Denker (whole text is only to recommend reading for more technical understanding of flight). The trim mechanism (balance between tail and wing forces) works such that it rotates airframe towards one fixed value of angle of attack and keeps it balanced there.
So what happens ... let's do the differentiation of motion in small steps:

the plane flew perfectly straight a short bit in tangential direction to the surface;
so the direction of the gravity force has changed by an infinitesimal angle and has a component pointing backwards relative to the airplane now;
this new component of gravity force starts slowing down the flight (we have not adjusted any control or engine power);
slower flight means less lift, so the airplane starts to fall down a little;
falling down means that relative airflow will come more from underside increasing the angle of attack perceived by airfoils;
now the trim mechanism comes into the play correcting the angle of attack to its original value.

So this small amount of falling down is corrected to forward flight (with respect to the airplane), but now the trajectory follows Earth curvature. Flying the circle means, that you are all the time falling down as seen relative to the previous direction of motion, so it is exactly what you need.

… and once the aircraft has stabilized on that west-east course, it has gained a miniscule pitch and yaw speed which will tilt it horizontally and along the right latitude all along the way, without any stability coming into play.

Thank you for answering this! It is frustrating that others didn't understand the question and I'm glad that you did. You answered it well, so I now understand. Thank you again.

I‘ll try a very short answer:
While the physics are not exactly the same, it’s similar to why the noses of ships or cars don’t point up after travelling a while - the equilibrium state (trimmed level flight for an aircraft, trimmed level float for a ship and supported by all wheels for a car) follows the surface of the earth so as to be locally horizontal at each point.

Yeah I was using a ball and computer mouse trying to visualize this and was probably creating a situation where my mouse-plane was gaining 3,000 miles at a time, greatly exaggerating the tilt problem. A car going over a hill too fast will do what I was envisioning,: launching into the air as the hill (earth) curves away under neath and there is a ton of video showing cars going nose up or even flipping backwards and crashing. Of course the angle of curvature of a hill proportionate to a car and its speed is greatly exaggerated as well.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How did the US get the necessary knowledge to maintain their MiGs?
I read a book entitled America's Secret MiG Squadron by Gaillard Peck some time ago. Just occurred to me though, how exactly did the US maintain these birds? Did we write any tech data? Did we acquire and translate it from elsewhere?

Its a combination of those. US did have manuals for quite a few of the Migs- Cold war alliances were shifting too frequently to prevent any leak of military technology. As warisboring.com notes:

Because Baghdad re-established its cooperation with London and the United States in late 1963, U.S. intelligence services not only received the opportunity to test-fly MiGs in Iraq, but also received all the related technical and training documentation.

The title page of the English translation of the tactical manual for MiG-21F-13 and MiG-21PF, as prepared by the USAF’s Foreign Technology Division. Notable is the date of issue — Nov. 5, 1965 — meaning that the original document must have been obtained much earlier. Tom Cooper Collection photo; Image from warisboring.com
As the Mig program was established in late 70's US would have had the required documentation for quite a few of the aircraft before that. The rest were done during the project using inputs from US intelligence and pilots themselves writing the flight manuals.
The Soviets sold their aircraft to many countries, the manuals for which could've been obtained from any of them. Also, there are multiple instances of pilot defection with manuals, which provided most of the required technical data for flying, though maintenance would have been difficult. As airforcemag notes:

This led to the second maintenance problem—the lack of instruction manuals  and  tech  data.  US  intelligence supplied  some  of  the  information they  needed  but  not  nearly  enough ...
Parts  were  their  third,  and  maybe biggest, problem. “For things like hydraulic pumps, we would use American components that looked about right,” said Stringer. “But it was only about five to 10 percent replacement. Most of the time we tried to recondition.”

and don't forget Israeli capture of Soviet hardware and manuals in their many wars with their Arab neighbours, quite a bit of it made its way to the US and UK. And later of course stuff obtained from former East Germany, Poland, Hungary, etc. when they joined NATO.


text:
Amending Operating Limitations for IFR operations
I own an experimental aircraft and have installed all the equipment necessary to fly under IFR. I found that there's a line on the Operating Limitations document that says "Day/Night VFR operation is authorized." ... but no mention of IFR. What needs to be done, (if anything), to legally file and fly IFR?

You will need to have the operating limitations amended, which will involve filing a 8130-6 application for an airworthiness certificate. Talk to a DAR or your local FSDO.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Wind direction on a chart?
Does the below suggest wind is from the SW (ie: you standing in the middle facing north with wind to tour rear left) or it's blowing from NE towards SW?

"Does the below suggest" - we can probably take an educated guess, but without knowing what your image is it's hard to know for sure!

@ymb1 that question you refer to talks about a METAR or ATIS, not a generic chart displaying wind direction like this question. (I have seen charts like this up at small flying clubs and airports without ATIS or METAR)

@ymb1 I just don't understand why you would need to reference another answer? Other than to implying that the person asking the question should have referenced other questions available before asking - a gentle rebuking tactic common amongst some users of aviation stack exchange - unnecessarily as people like me are happy to answer the new question. This question has nothing to do with METARS or ATIS, where your linked answer does only discuss METARS and ATIS.

I already posted a comment on the first version of this question: Such indicator is used here. At the moment it points West, and at the same time we can look at this Peloponnesus location on Earth visualization site and see air comes from West. You can check for your location the same way instead of continuing asking the same question which is not related to aviation.

@tedioustortoise As ymb1 has said, we actively try to discourage having multiple duplicates of much the same question. Although the linked duplicate talks about TAF/METAR you can see it's asking much the same question! There is nothing intended to be discouraging about this. Although sometimes it might feel that way

@Jamiec I don't just feel discouraged, I do think it is discouraging, particularly to new users. It just seems to be overly-policed to its own harm. The other question marked as the was asked over 5 years ago. Secondly, there is a big difference between TAFs/METARs where established practices are in place for met (ICAO Annex 3) and generic met principles such as a random chart in a small flying club. There is a difference, in my opinion enough of a difference to merit multiple questions. I think such policing is far more detrimental than the risk of having similar questions in the database.

Wind Direction is typically reported in meteorological observation as the direction from where the wind is blowing.

The normal unit of wind speed is the knot . Wind direction is measured relative to true north (not magnetic north) and is reported from where the wind is blowing. An easterly wind blows from the east or 90 degrees, a southerly from the south or 180 degrees and a westerly from the west or 270 degrees.
UK Met Office

The true direction from which the wind is blowing at a given location (i.e., wind blowing from the north to the south is a north wind). It is normally measured in tens of degrees from 10 degrees clockwise through 360 degrees. North is 360 degrees. A wind direction of 0 degrees is only used when wind is calm.
USA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Glossary

Without reference to what chart you are referencing it is not possible to confirm this, but I would make an educated presumption that the wind in your example is blowing from the SW (to the NE) - a "south-westerly".

The only exception this the presumption (wind FROM) is when a chart gives a wind-sock symbol - in this case I would assume the wind sock is pointed to the direction where the wind is is going TO, as a real wind-sock would!

Additional Info
ICAO Annex 3 - Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation - does not actually specify this (wind direction always being 'from'). (Probably because universally wind direction is given as degrees FROM in meteorology).

4.6 Observing and reporting meteorological elements
4.6.1 Surface wind
4.6.1.1 The mean direction and the mean speed of the surface wind shall be measured, as well as significant variations
of the wind direction and speed, and reported in degrees true and metres per second (or knots), respectively.

But does confirm that it is given in degrees True.

Please consider adding this answer to the duplicated question rather than this one.

@DJClayworth my answer would not make sense on that question. An answer to that question would reference ICAO Annex 3 Meteorology as the person asking the question distinctly refers to ATIS and METARs. My answer here applies to someone who walks into a small flying club (no ATIS/METAR) and there is a chart on screen showing the wind direction.


text:
Go for a SPL or PPL?
Assuming normal fuel burn and one round trip to the airfield per flight hour, at “C” (Cub J3C) I was told that I “can” obtain a US FAA SPL with 15 hours of dual (\$2,565 @ \$171/h) and 5 hours of solo (\$460 @ \$91/h) plus $1,200. So \$4,160, mixing my math and the school’s quotes.
At “S1” (Cessna C-172) with the same assumptions I “can” get a US FAA PPL with 23 hours of dual* (\$5,618 @ \$244/h) and 17 hours of solo (\$2,754 @ \$162/h), plus \$1,600. So \$9,972.
*Yes, the regs only require 20, but I can only do what a particular school will actually do.
There are other schools that offer C-172s but S1 would be marginally cheaper.
The big difference is the test / prep / checkride. Doing two would be \$2,800, but a year or more apart in time.
Of course there will be fractional overages, and not everybody gets a SPL in 20 hours or a PPL in 40. (Although if you go bang-bang-bang through the course of study without breaks I think you are far more likely to.) But I’m assuming those additional costs are likewise proportional.
Therefore, a SPL will cost me less than half of a PPL. And right now I have no need to go faster or carry more than one person. (It might be hard to find one person who will fly with me anyway.)
Even if I reserve \$1,600 for that second test, the remaining difference (\$9,972 - \$4,160 = \$5,812 - \$1,600 = \$4,212) would buy about 46:15 hours in the Cub. (Plus, as a grad of their school, I’d be able to rent without obtaining an additional tailwheel endorsement or taking a familiarization flight.)
Am I not seeing something? Even if I obtain a PPL in the future the SPL dual hours will count once I have a SPL, and the PiC hours will count as total hours if I go beyond a PPL.
I’m not going to finance flying (even if I could). So it seems like a SPL gets me more logged hours 12 months (and 24 months) from now than a PPL does.

By the way, the "problem" you had with the $ sign is because we use MathJax here as there are often quite complex mathematical notations in questions & answers. MathJax uses the dollar sign. Admittedly kind of annoying when you're trying to post dollar amounts. But the workaround is to "escape" them \$

What you haven't told us is your aspiration for flying? Recreational, Professional, want to get an instrument rating?.... it makes a big difference to the answer.

Jamiec -- Right now, I haven't decided. I am in school right now and cannot decide to borrow a bunch of money to obtain a CPL in the next 12 months. But let's just say that eventually I would want that 250-hour CPL. I can't see how going SPL to CPL by way of a PPL would cost more than going straight PPL to CPL. CPL requires 250 hours, unless I have misread something, all 100 hours of the PiC requirement can be in a LSA, as can all 50 hours of the cross country. Getting a night endorsement on the SPL is illogical if I eventually get a PPL, and I can't do complex or instruments with a SPL.

Jameiec -- thanks $ (backslash dollar sign).

There's some great commentary about this over on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/1e5gxty/spl_this_summer_ppl_later/

Is getting a PPL at the first school an option? You can get your PPL in an LSA aircraft as long as the instructor is a full CFI. Getting your PPL in the cub will be cheaper than either other route.

Chris -- No, one school at one airfield in one direction offers a SPL in J3C's, another two schools offer PPLs in C-172's and one in PA-28s. The least expensive of the latter is marginally further, at a different field in a different direction.

Chris -- Now, there is a place in the next state over that has Cubs 150s and an Archer.

I feel for you guys today. In the early 90s we would get C152s for 38 dollars per hr wet and C172s for 46 dollars per hr wet from Ellington Field or Houston Gulf (no longer there). Self-serve Av gas was less than $1.00/gal as well. Costs today are staggering by comparison. Regardless, I would always recommend a Private Pilot license over Sport. Time and comfort in the cockpit may be the difference between a safe landing or not if things go wrong (like inadvertent flight into IMC at night). Regardless of cost, the additional training for the private is worth every penny.

The average hours of a PPL is around 75 hours. The minimums are a red herring.

I don't know all the nuances of the SPL as it wasn't an option when I got my PPL, but I have looked into it as flying under the SPL rules is an option with a PPL. If you're OK with the limitations, it's a good option.
I think your numbers are fairly accurate, but I would caution that almost no one finishes in the 'published' number of hours. Where I got my PPL, the curriculum was 35 hours (a Part 141 school). I had 50 hours when I took my check ride. Most students had 60-70 hours when they completed. The one-hour lessons, all seemed to take 1.2 to 1.4 hours and sometimes you didn't complete the lesson and had to try again.
In the early phases of flying, flying regularly and often is important to keep the 'momentum'. If you don't fly for two or three weeks, you'll be spending time re-learning the last lesson. I tried to fly every week. I missed a few due to work and weather, but tried to squeeze in another lesson to keep the once a week average. So expect to take more hours than the minimum.
So with all that, I'm in the camp that says flying hours are flying hours and the cheaper the better. With the difference in hourly rates between the Cub and the 172, I'd go with the Cub. And to be honest, it will probably make you a better pilot. Tailwheel aircraft are a lot less forgiving of bad habits.
Yeah, you'll have the added expense of the SPL tests, but if you do go on for the PPL, you're not really out any extra money over the straight to PPL route. I'd do it just for the time in a Cub (I don't have a tailwheel endorsement, but I have flown in a Cub, just not as PIC.)

As of 8.10.24 I have logged about 10.5 hours of dual before my first solo and a few more dual and solo hours thereafter. I see why people say tail draggers are 'hard', although I would just say that they are "unforgiving of inattention, and not really difficult". I'm about $2300 in, and over half-way to . . .. I'll have to draw another distinction here. I may have 100 flight hours logged before I get my SPL if I can afford it [because the weather is great, I'm having a blast, and the DPE is really busy], but I doubt I'll have 20 hours of instruction.


text:
How many commercial passenger aircraft suffer tail strikes in a given year?
This is inspired by a lengthy set of comments on this question (for reference).
I've been searching the internet high and low for reliable information on how many tail strikes occur per year for commercial passenger aviation, and I can't seem to turn up anything reliable.  Articles I've read range from saying they happen maybe once a year to several times a year, but none of them show hard numbers or list all incidents (here, here and here for a sampling.)
If anyone has verifiable hard numbers on this, I would love to see them...

Sorry for up-voting and ruining your beautiful 5,000 reputation (though 5,005 is kinda nice, too). :-)

@DavidRicherby lol, no problems. Man. I never thought I'd reach 5000 on a stack...better take a moment to soak it in :)

A preliminary answer might be the results of searching incident reports at AVHerald
Accident    Ryanair B738 at London on Jul 29th 2014, tail strike on landing
Incident    Ryanair B738 at Alicante on Mar 27th 2013, tail scrape on takeoff
Report      Jazz DH8C at Gaspe on Sep 10th 2012, hard landing and tailstrike
Incident    Smartlynx Estonia A320 at Tallinn on Jul 31st 2014, tail strike on landing
Accident    Swiss A321 at Geneva on Mar 9th 2014, tail strike on landing
Incident    ANA B763 at Tokyo on Mar 13th 2014, suspected tailstrike on departure
Accident    TAROM B733 at Bucharest on Apr 4th 2011, tail strike
Accident    Lufthansa A333 at Chicago on Mar 5th 2013, undetected tailstrike on takeoff
Incident    Transavia B738 at Amsterdam on Apr 29th 2013, suspected tailstrike
Accident    Aeromexico B762 at Madrid on Apr 16th 2013, tail strike on takeoff
Accident    Titan B733 at Chambery on Apr 14th 2012, tail strike
Accident    Sata A313 at Ponta Delgada on Mar 2nd 2013, tail strike on landing
Report      Jetstar A320 at Sydney on Feb 6th 2012, thrust lever asymmetry during takeoff and early rotation
Accident    China Cargo B772 at Copenhagen on Apr 17th 2011, tail strike on go-around
Accident    Austrian A321 at Manchester on Dec 23rd 2011, tail strike during go-around
Incident    Air Atlanta A306 at East Midlands on Jan 10th 2011, tailstrike on landing, go-around with open thrust reverser
Incident    Air Atlanta A306 at East Midlands on Jan 10th 2011, tailstrike on landing, go-around with open thrust reverser
Accident    Emirates A345 at Melbourne on Mar 20th 2009, tail strike and overrun on takeoff
Accident    Gol B738 at Porto Alegre on Nov 16th 2011, tail strike on landing
Report      Lufthansa MD11 at Mumbai on Jun 11th 2011, tailstrike on landing
Accident    China Cargo B772 at Copenhagen on Apr 17th 2011, tail strike on go-around
Report      Kam Air DC86 at Manston on Aug 11th 2010, tail strike on takeoff
Accident    TUIFly B738 at Tenerife on Mar 27th 2011, rejected takeoff due to tailstrike
Report      Tunisair B736 at Paris on Oct 10th 2008, rejected takeoff after rotation
Accident    United Airlines B744 at Sydney on May 7th 2010, tail strike on takeoff
Accident    Northwest A320 at Denver on May 4th 2009, tail strike on landing
Incident    Austrian B763 at Beijing on Jan 29th 2010, tailscrape on takeoff
Accident    Northwest A320 at Denver on May 4th 2009, tail strike on landing
Report      Ryanair B738 at Dublin on Sep 11th 2008, tailstrike on takeoff
Crash       Avient Aviation MD11 at Shanghai on Nov 28th 2009, overran runway on takeoff
Report      Thomas Cook A332 at Montego Bay on Oct 28th 2008, mislaid manual leads to wrong takeoff speeds
Report      Thomson Airways B763 at Manchester on Dec 13th 2008, tail strike
Incident    PIA B743 at Lahore on Jun 23rd 2009, suspected tail strike leads to discovery of tail strike
Incident    Australian Air Express B463 at Brisbane on Oct 23rd 2008, tail strike on hard landing
Accident    Emirates A345 at Melbourne on Mar 20th 2009, tail strike and overrun on takeoff
Accident    Emirates A345 at Melbourne on Mar 20th 2009, tail strike and overrun on takeoff
Report      Aigle Azur A321 at Algiers on Jan 8th 2008, tailstrike during landing
Incident    Pegasus B738 at Cologne on Dec 20th 2008, tailstrike on takeoff
Report      Flybe DH8D at Paris on May 28th 2008, tailstrike
Report      My Travel A320 at Kos on Jul 5th 2007, very hard landing
Incident    Cargo B B742 at Brussels on Oct 27th 2008, tail strike on takeoff
Incident    Ryanair B738 at Dublin on Sep 11th 2008, tail strike on takeoff
Accident    Swiss RJ100 at London City on Aug 18th 2007, tailstrike on landing
Incident    Comair (SA) B732 at Cape Town on May 3rd 2008, tail strike
Incident    Ryan Int B738 at Milwaukee on Mar 14th 2008, tailstrike on takeoff
Accident    RyanAir B738 at Stansted on Feb 18th 2008, tailstrike on takeoff
Accident    RyanAir B738 at Stansted on Feb 18th 2008, tailstrike on takeoff
Incident    Delta B767 at Moscow on Jan 26th 2008, tailstrike on takeoff
Accident    Swiss RJ100 at London City on Aug 18th 2007, tailstrike on landing
Incident    LaudaAir B738 at Linz on Oct 2nd 2007, tailstrike at about taxi speed
Accident    Swiss RJ100 at London City on Aug 18th 2007, tailstrike on landing
Accident    Swiss RJ100 at London City on Aug 18th 2007, tailstrike on landing
Accident    Swiss RJ100 at London City on Aug 18th 2007, tailstrike on landing
Accident    Swiss RJ100 at London City on Aug 18th 2007, tailstrike on landing
Incident    RyanAir B738 at Dublin on Mar 20th 2007, tailstrike during takeoff

You need to check some of these, some of them mention tailstrike where none occurred (e.g. inapppropriate pilot action due to fear of tailstrike)
You may need to define tailstrike, maybe a controlled flight into terrain sometimes involves a tailstrike but wouldn't be categorised as such.

The other question is how large percent of such incidents actually make it to AvHerald. It does not list all incidents.


text:
What is the minimal landing area required for an EC135 air medical services helicopter?
The Netherlands has a few Eurocopter EC135s for air medical services. (See Wikipedia.) How much clear landing space is required (either theoretically, practically or regulatory) for these?

According to my experience on Flight Simulator X, roughly an area the size of a medium sized town - but I suspect I'm not the most talented helicopter pilot.

Theoretically the diameter of the rotor plus some room for the tail is sufficient. If it fits, it fits.
Practically, a bit of room for manoeuvring is required. Also special attention to the generated turbulence is needed in cramped spaces.
Regulatory I don't know the exact size required for the EC135 operated as air ambulance in the Netherlands. But I do know that the Dutch police helicopters are allowed to land on an area with a diameter of 1.5 $\times$ LOA (length over all) during daytime operations. They hit a lamp mast once which resulted in this investigation (in Dutch - or English text-only translation) by the Onderzoeksraad (Dutch Safety Board). Page 5 and 6 show some of the regulations in force at the time (2008).

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule for this, but it depends on a number of factors:

Wind/ Weather conditions requiring safety margins.
Effect of nearby objects/structures. If they are big I think they might cause unpredictable wind effects, again requiring compensation and space.

(source: flugzeug-bild.de)
That said, I'm no helicopter pilot, so somebody else might be able to give a more detailed answer. YouTube is a pretty decent place to find some tight landings though.

From what little I understand about helicopter operations, that's basically the deal: You can land anywhere you can fit (the biggest consideration being not smacking the tail rotor into anything). Various helicopter-related sites offer rules of thumb on landing area size and other considerations (that PDF from CALSTAR recommends 100x100 feet, or about 30x30 meters)

@voretaq7 that sounds pretty reasonable.


text:
What is the purpose of aluminium foil on the wheels?
I saw this plane on a remote ramp at BKK today.  What is the purpose of aluminium foil on the wheels?  Does it mean the plane is in mothball?  I don't see other planes, even in maintenance, with aluminium foil on the tires.

In respect of the photo's license, I am the owner of the picture and authorize anyone to use my photo for any purpose except illegal activity.

They are reflective covers to protect the tires from the elements, especially UV. Similar to the shades visible in the windscreen. Goodyear says:

Aircraft tires, like other rubber products, are affected to some degree by sunlight and extremes of weather.
  While weather-checking does not impair performance, it can be reduced by protective covers. These covers
  (ideally with light color or aluminized surface to reflect sunlight) should be placed over tires when an
  aircraft is tied down outside.

It also protects the tires from other substances like oil and hydraulic fluid.
The plane is not necessarily mothballed. I would expect it to be parked much more out of the way in that case. But the wheel and window covers do suggest that they expect it to be parked there for some time.
Information is a bit sparse, but it appears that Happy Air only has that one Saab 340 now, but since September all flights are operated by Nok Air, who operates Dash 8 Q400, ATR 72-500, and 737-800 aircraft.


text:
Do all Bombardier jets have manual reversion?
Whatever CRJ 700 or Learjet 35A/45XR.
Do these aircraft have full manual reversion? Can you operate the flying surfaces in a hydraulic failure?
These aircraft are very small – even smaller than a 737 – so I guess they all do.

CRJ's have Ram air turbine which will power hydraulic system 3 in case everything fails. 737 don't RAT so they have to have manual controls.

Can't speak for the Lear, which I believe has manual controls anyway, but the CRJs DO NOT have manual reversion.  The RJs are designed to a technical level similar to the Boeing 767.
The control surfaces are purely hydraulically operated.  For elevator and rudder, which have 3 PCUs each, you'd have to lose all 3 hydraulic systems to lose the surfaces.  For the ailerons, which are 2 PCU and split one of them on each side to Hydraulic System 2 and 3 while the others run on System 1, you have to lose 2 systems to lose one aileron, and all 3 to lose both ailerons.
The probability of this kind of multiple failure event is below the 1:1,000,000,000 risk threshold for catastrophic events, so it's good to go.
It's been discussed before how the hydraulic PCU can kind of be driven manually by hauling on the controls to lever the PCU piston about the bottomed-out servo control valve, but this would only give a bit of movement at the limits of control travel in any case and is not a practical consideration for trying to control the aircraft in flight.

Q400: the ailerons are manual. Hyd1 and 2 power the rudder and spoilers. Hyd1, 2 and 3 power elevators.
Global Express: triple hydraulic redundancies in all three axes.

The pre-400 D-8s are only hydraulic for rudder.  Elevators use spring tabs for servo boost.  The 400 was overdesigned and this hurt it with operators who were better suited to the simple mechanicals of the older ones and it lost ground to the simpler to maintain ATR 72.  They should have just stretched the 300 with minimum changes.


text:
Is it possible to design a GA plane with a 5' -10' wing span?
We see sparrows with 6" wing span land on a dime, yet it seems there no GA planes you can buy or build from a kit with short bodies, short wing spans,
something with a 20' landing/takeoff roll, something with folding wings you can drive out of your garage, take off from your driveway ( if you live in a non built up area) and land almost anywhere at 20mph.
It seems like GA is dying, but I think a lot more people would be interested in flying if GA planes were way more useful.
Yes, there was the BD5 which was nice and small, not STOL though, the Alaskan bush pilots are taking off/landing in 10' ( yeah!!) in their super cubs, a standard Zenith 701 STOL which can take off in 25' with a good headwind, but all have large spans
Using the Cri Cri as an example

Cri Cri Monoplane: , I think it has a span of 15’ and a chord of 2’ for a wing area of 30 ft2.
Cri Cri biplane: Now imagine  converting it into a biplane with a span of 1/2 or 7.5’, same chord.
Cri chi triplane: Now take the Cri Cri monoplane and reduce the span to 1/3, or 5', same chord.

Why can't we have planes with 5-10' wing spans.
Is it impossible to design roll stability into a plane with such a short wing span?
Is there any other reason, like 50% effectiveness, etc. at low span due to span wise flow, instead of chord wise flow, etc.
Looking at Selig's work on multi element racing car wings, their spans are only 5', with a cl of up to 4.5!!  He does mention they need huge end plates to avoid span wise flow.

Your first paragraph is a good description of an ultralight

The bird can only land on a dime because it is able to temporarily settle into a semi-hover while it's touching down.

It's great that you were able to accept the answer to your question after three months with your own answer of a product that you have developed.

Compare the length of the sparrow's wings to its body, then read up on the square-cube law.  And think about larger birds like eagles & albatrosses.

@jamesqf: What are you referring to?  Length is just a moment arm, and can be adjusted shorter or longer with tail volume.  Having said that, I understand most GA airplanes have almost an equal length and width.  Square-cube law applies to scaling up things, but those things are just mathematical.  It's all about lift, wing loading, power loading and stability, no?

@Fred: What I'm saying is that the sparrow's 6" or so wingspan is roughly the same as the length of its body.  Scale that up, and the wing span of say a Cherokee or C172 is roughly the same as the length of its fuselage.  And larger birds, which can't scale power with weight, have even greater wingspans in proportion to body length, as do sailplanes.

They can, its just not a very efficient size for one that needs to cary people. The simple answer is that everything comes with a trade off, there are plenty of planes with small wing spans like this one, and this one and some planes that don't have wings at all... But smaller wing spans means a thicker wing, at some point you will run into a drag issue, a roll stability issue or both.
When it comes to aircraft people tend to be concerned with efficiency as air travel has always been about going far, fast, and for a similar cost to what you can on another means of transport. As such efficient designs win out over novel ones or ones that provide some means of limited added benefit.
On any note most of the supporting infrastructure has been designed for planes with substantial wing spans so aircraft width in the GA market is not really a huge issue. Saying a narrower wing is "way more useful" depends on your use case.

Part of the reason is that bird wings can deform a lot, under detailed muscular control, while aircraft wings are usually stiff structures of metal, with at best a few controllable flaps & slots.  If you made a model of a sparrow that just held its wings out in a fixed position, it would not be able to land on a dime.
Then there's the matter of thrust to weight ratio, and the general square-cube law.  Sparrows don't weigh much at all, so they can take off and land with relatively little power.  (And hummingbirds are even better.)  Large birds like albatrosses & condors have trouble getting off the ground, and mostly fly by soaring.  A human-carrying aircraft would have to weigh at least a factor of 10 more than the largest (flying) bird...

The shorter your wingspan, the longer your landing roll is going to be.
Wide chord wings rely on lower angles of attack and higher airspeeds to work well. Stacked wings work at slow speeds, and indeed allow for shorter spans, but their lift doesn't increase linearly with the number of wings. Also, lift falls quicker than linear with reduced spans, as the fuselage and areas close to it don't contribute as much lift as the clean mid section of the wing. They are also draggy and heavy, and at some point it becomes easier to just go to a rotary wing.
5 ft wide racing car wings can produce enough lift to support a car - at 200 mph. At 200 mph, you're looking at takeoff/landing roll of about a mile. This would be of some utility to the few of us who benefit from a mile-long driveway, but since a plane with no wingspan is a pig to fly, you might as well fly a regular one with that much private land.
The 10' takeoff video was filmed with probably 40 mph of headwind. This much headwind is difficult to produce reliably, but you don't have to be the god of winds to do it - all you need is an aircraft carrier, which you turn into the wind and run at full speed. So the very few of us with a pond large enough for such a toy can similarly benefit from 10' takeoffs at any time.
And for the majority of us who don't get to play with toys like that, if you want your plane to land like a sparrow, you have to have it the size and the weight of a sparrow. A sparrow weighs just over an ounce, and scaling one up from a 6" to 6' wingspan would produce an aircraft weighing about 10 pounds gross.
Such a radical weight loss can be challenging for most pilots, but many UAV and fixed-wing drones in this weight class can indeed be launched simply with a hand toss. If they had arms of their own - that is, if their wings could flap like a bird's - they could do away with even that.

Re scaling up a sparrow, you're forgetting the square-cube law.  12 * 12 * 12 = 1782 ounces, or 108 pounds.

@jamesqf Not quite - rather I'm exactly using the square-cube law. At fixed airspeed, the sparrow will only scale as 12*12. Same airspeed means same wing loading (roughly). A cube-scaled sparrow will also have its velocity requirements increased 12 times.

I don't see how airspeed applies here.  If you scale up a sparrow by a factor of 12, then the weight scales up by a factor of 12^3.  You can find birds with a 6' wingspan and 10-15 lb weigh (e.g. the bald eagle), but their wings are much larger in comparison to the body than a sparrow's wings.


text:
What military aircraft has six propeller engines?
Today, in south-east Scotland, I saw a plane that looked a bit like a Hercules but had four pods on each wing. I'm pretty sure that three of them were propeller engines and the end one was something else. They all looked a similar size. Height was lowish but not very low and it did not show up on flightradar24.  I could not discern colour. I didn't get much of a look as I rushed in to get binoculars and it was well past and banking to the right when I got out again.

It would help if you told us where you saw this, what time/date, and any other location details that you remember. The color of the aircraft may help too.

Six engines, or 6-bladed props?  Some C-130 variants have two pods under each wing; inboard pods are fuel tanks, and external pods are for helo refueling. I can't think of any modern Western plane with six engines these days. Maybe something Russian or Chinese?  Modern Herks do have 6-bladed props, though.

The only thing that really comes to mind is a Convair B-36, but those are distinctly pusher props. The aircraft itself is pretty massive compared to a C-130, though.

Unfortunately I didn't get a photo. At first glance I thought it had 4 engines on each wing, but got the impression that only 3 of each 4 had propellers. It was in SE Scotland and it was heading roughly South a few miles from the coast. Today. I could not discern colour. I didn't get much of a look as I rushed in to get binoculars and it was well past and banking to the right when I got out again.

Thanks 0xdd, but I've looked up pics of the Convair B-36 and don't think it was that. If C-130s can be fitted with two pods on each wing, then that could be the answer.

@0xdd I don't think there's even one flying B-36 left, anyway.

The question title and body ask different things.

Swept wings? Was it very large, very noisy?

Juan, the OP has made it clear he meant six engines, not six blades per engine.  You should roll back your edit, because it has changed the meaning of the question.

"Swept wings? Was it very large, very noisy?"  My impression was it was like a C130 but possibly larger and with longer wings, so no not swept, and same noise as C-130 although that is a very approximate answer.

Nice thought, Hugh -- but I doubt Bears fly that close to the Scottish coast without a British fighter escort...

Likely this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130#/media/File:AC-130U_gunship_from_the_4th_Special_Operations_Squadron.jpg or one of the other derivatives that have additional pods outside the last set of engines, which includes refueling units. Better image: https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1217

Maury Markowitz  - I dunno - I thought I could see the blur or a propeller x 3 on each wing - and that the three presumed engines all looked the same size and height, but if there are no other options, then that remains the most likely. Thanks. I'll be on the lookout with a camera at hand in case it returns.                                    Thankyou Hugh for correcting the title.

You've probably seen a tanker variant of the C-130, like this KC-130J:

Source: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone
On each wing there is an extra fuel tank and the pod containing the air-refueling hose.

I probably have - years ago - probably last century, I saw something similar fly over whilst refuelling two helicopters. I am looking back through the mists of time but as far as I can recall there were two helicopters involved and one of them docked as they passed over. It was a sight worth seeing.

It’s most likely a C-130. There’s pictures of four-podded Herculeses online, but so far I haven’t found one with usage rights that allow posting here.


text:
Should I set the runway heading to the course box on G1000 before takeoff or should I set the SID course I will intercept after takeoff?
To what degree should I set the course box on the G1000 screen? Runway heading or SID course? Because although the runway heading is 044 degrees in the SID chart I shared below, the SID departure course is 057 degrees. I know I will set 044 for the heading but I don't know what to set for the course. I also know that I will take off at heading 044 runway, but I do not know when I will intercept course 057 after takeoff. Should I intercept course 057 after safety altitude? I would be glad if you help.

This seems like the sort of question which should be asked of your IFR-certified instructor, not the Internet in general.

Yeah, you are right but I am in a different situation so it is not possible to ask my CFI.

The G1000 avionics are RNAV capable, or in Garmin jargon "GPS navigation".  Even though this SID is the conventional type and does not require RNAV equipment, you can use GPS navigation as a substitute for the VOR.
Rather than fumbling around with the VOR course, the BIG 1R or the EKI 1R SID should be loaded from the navigation database.
The NAV source should be set to GPS and the HSI needle should be magenta.
If for some reason you wanted to fly VOR only, the initial course selection is 057 as explained multiple times on that chart.

but I do not know when I will intercept course 057 after takeoff.

The VOR is located past the runway, which means the radial is intercepted upon passing the VOR.  On the G1000 HSI, the green arrow would switch from "up" to "down".

Thank you so much for the answer. So, I should intercept the 057 radial (course) after passing the VOR?

@pilot162 Correct.  Some airports and some SIDs specify a minimum turn altitude.  Otherwise, fly straight past the VOR then follow the radial or RNAV guidance.

You will NOT intercept "course 057," that is to say, a 057° track across the ground with no underlying reference. That kind of instruction is only found in Area Navigation (RNAV) procedures. The Biga 1R and Tekirdag 1R procedures are "conventional" procedures, not RNAV. This means you will fly according to prescribed headings and NAVAID radials rather than flying unsupported courses. (The CRL057 radial might in truth be a 057° course across the ground but this is by no means guaranteed.)
This procedure tells you to use your VOR receiver for lateral guidance. Before takeoff, tune 114.8 in your NAV radio. Then use your Omni-Bearing Selector knob to set radial 057 on your CDI.
On takeoff, watch the needle on your CDI and maneuver your aircraft so the needle centers on the 057 radial of Corlu VOR. Stay on that radial as you climb to 2000, then turn left back toward the VOR. As you cross the VOR at 3000, set your OBS knob to the 202 radial and fly that one outbound from the VOR.

Thank you for the answer, but also I would like to ask about intercepting altitude. Because I have to take-off on the runway heading 044 degree. Should I immediately follow the CDI after take-off for 057 or should I wait for safety altitude or something else to intercept 057 degree?


text:
Why is the box I marked with a red arrow empty and no class information given?
Why is the box I marked with a red arrow empty and no class information given? On the NDB chart, both places are left blank. Am I supposed to consider the gap "FULL" by reference from the ILS minimums? In other charts of the same airport (VOR, ILS, NDB, etc.), this section is left blank. I also saw that these sections were left blank in different airport charts. Pictures from airport LTAF page 21-2 ILS Y or LOC Y Rwy 05 Jeppesen chart and airport LTAF page 26-1 NDB Z Rwy 05 Jeppesen chart.

"Full" means that everything is working, including TDZ (touchdown zone lights) & CL (centerline lights) along with the approach lights (ALS). To get the lowest mins for an ILS, all of that is required, and any inop component gives you "less than Full" and raises your mins.
In contrast, the other approaches you reference don't need CL or TDZ lighting in order for the lowest mins to apply, so "Full" wouldn't be accurate. Not having TDZ and or CL doesn't raise those mins.
In other words, you could think of the blank boxes as being like "Full or TDZ out and/or CL out"... any condition that isn't "ALS Out" gets the mins in that column.

Thank you very much, sir, you have been helpful.


text:
When to apply cold temperature correction?
I am having trouble understanding when to apply cold temperature correction, I have heard about the below 0 deg Celsius rule but I could not find any of this in official regulations such as 8168 or FAA AIM chapter 7 section 3.
If someone knows the answer please support your answer with some official reg, ideally EASA or ICAO.

May or may not answer your question, but this thread has background info. These corrections typically don't apply until the temperature is well below 0 degrees C.

It is common (in Europe, probably elsewhere) for commercial pilots to cold temperature correct all altitudes that are lower or equal to the MSA when the airport temperature is 0°C or below, in accordance with their company’s standard operating procedures.
For example if the MSA is 5000ft we would cold temperature adjust all altitudes in our CDU at or below 5000ft and also add a cold temperature adjustment to the minimums (DA/MDA).
Skybrary provides a downloadable Excel file calculator tool, which might be useful as a helpful demonstration to show you how to make these corrections.
The regulations are described in ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS) - Section 2 Chapter 4, 4.3 (including table 2-4-1). Though these cold temp corrections may typically also be referenced in the Flight Crew Operations Manual (FCOM) which is practically where pilots would go to find a reference and make calculations (tables would be available like this). For the Boeing 737, it is listed as a supplementary procure (SP) in the FCOM, in the Adverse Weather section.
There will be temperature restrictions on some approaches, such as RNP approaches.
Further information in Skybrary

ICAO Doc 8168 says "The calculated minimum safe altitudes/heights must be adjusted when the ambient temperature on the surface is much lower than that predicted by the standard atmosphere." I don't know what the regulation mean by using the term 'much lower' is it defined more precisely somewhere else?


text:
What do the dates at the bottom right of the page mean? I shared the pictures
What do the dates at the bottom right of the page mean? It's easy to predict a single date, but what's the difference when there are two dates?

Those are the years in which that particular publication has been copyrighted by the Jeppesen company.

Yes for sure but why are there 2 dates for some? Isn't a single date enough for their rights to be preserved?

It's the date when it was originally copyrighted, @pilot162, then when the copyright was renewed. You'll find multiple dates on many, many things like that, sometimes, 3 or 4 or 10 renewals.

Copyright questions are a better fit for Law SE,

@MichaelHall I am of the possibly contrarian opinion that questions belong where a person seeking an answer to that particular question is likely to look for it, even is the answer fits a different domain. That is a somewhat subjective judgement, but aviation SE seems to me to be the place for questions about the contents of Jeppesen pages.

It is a requirement of copyright notices that the year of publication be included. If parts of a publication were published at different times then the year of publication for each part needs to be included in the notice.
If there is more than one date this means that parts were published on one date and part in the other - so for the first map some parts were published in 1998 and some in 2021. (I'm unclear as to whether some parts may have been published in intervening years - when I was doing this you had to include literally every year in which some part was published.)


text:
Can I be a commercial pilot if I've had a dental filling?
Is there something like a health requirement in serious airlines? Or is it just a myth? How are potential pilots screened when it comes down to physical requirements?

The appropriate answer to this question would depend on what country you are asking about since each country has their own rules, and they aren't the same. Please update your question to indicate where you live.

Here are the mouth and throat requirements for a pilot physical.
The main thing is that it shouldn't affect your ability to fly (i.e. having pain) and ability to communicate over the radio.
Commercial pilots who don't fly regular schedules need a Class 2 medical certificate. Regular schedule commercial pilots need a Class 1.

FAA Class 2 medical requirements
FAA Class 1 medical requirements

The major requirement for dental fillings as far as aviation (or diving) is concerned is there not be a trapped air pocket under the filling (this could cause problems for divers or pilots as the pressure changes may cause discomfort. (It's called barodontalgia - pressure-induced tooth pain.)
Air pockets are something your dentist will try to avoid anyway because they promote further decay & will eventually require more work on the tooth, so if your dentist is competent you shouldn't have any problems.
If you do notice discomfort while flying mention it to your dentist - an X-Ray can usually identify the problem in a few minutes, and your dentist can then take care of it (replace the filling, or if it's a new cavity treat it appropriately).

Dental fillings, false teeth, implants are all permitted so long as the mouth is healthy and there are no abcesses.
Commercial pilots need a first class medical certificate.  I don't have that reference here with me now, but perhaps someone can post either a link to the requirements for a first class medical, or list the requirements here.

In the US, commercial pilots require a 2nd class medical certificate.  Airline pilots require a 1st class medical.

Dan, you are right.  I made the assumption that the OP's "serious airline" would require a first class medical.


text:
Can a civilian aircraft pilot see a missile coming?
Can a civilian aircraft pilot see a missile coming?
By "civilian aircraft," I mean planes that were not equipped with flares that fire when rockets approach  or any similar anti-missile systems.  If these missiles can be detected, can the pilot take any evasive measures?

Hopefully oneday all commercial aircraft will be fitted with this --- http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2014/02/27/elbit-unveils-laser-based-anti-missile-system-for-commercial-airliners-all-el-al-jets-will-be-protected/

@Tasos: that system wouldn't help against a radar-homing missile like the one thought to be responsible for the loss of MH017.

@ RedGrittyBrick -- Yeah that tech is for shoulder missiles, but im sure they can add some radar jamming equipment also. like this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_countermeasure

We at Travel SE have a very similar question. Maybe some of you can add helpful answers.

Due to the recent media explosion on MH17's demise, I'm going to freely assume that this is the case that you have in mind. MH17 was a very unusual and extremely rare case. Normally, commercial aircraft might protect against typical shoulder missiles in dangerous areas, but in that case the rebels had access to extremely advanced Russian-made land-to-air weaponry. Commercial airliners will likely never be capable of defense against such a system, nor should they have the need to be.

@jt0dd - Really? Aren't Buk systems used in Ukraine at least 20 years old? That's not extremely advanced.

@Davor It was a Russian made radar-guided vehicle-launched anti-air missile system. That's pretty darn advanced. There aren't many combat aircraft that defend against that system outside evasive maneuver. They put systems that can do it on tanks and ships, but it takes a large amount of energy to jam radar.

@RedGrittyBrick You can also counter the counter measures (ECCM). Unfortunately nothing can save a 75 m slow moving commercial airliner from a modern SAM.

I think it is very important to note that countermeasures such as flares are MANUALLY deployed by the pilot. They are not (except in the case of some systems possibly desgined with the purpose) deployed automatically when a threat is detected. Typically, flares are used as a preventative measure, to prevent the enemy gaining a lock, because IR missiles typically give no warning. Chaff, on the other hand, is used against radar missiles after launch, to spoof radar signals. (Essentially glorified tinfoil.) Radar missiles give a pretty easily recognizable warning to any EWS(warning) systems.

Visual detection
To take one example, a vehicle-launched ground to air missile system (e.g. the SA-11) that can reach the cruising altitude of airliners travels at several thousand miles per hour and takes perhaps 30 to 40 seconds from launch to reach its target.
Pilots don't have an especially good view of the ground immediately below and would have a very hard time spotting a missile travelling at those speeds.
Electronic detection
Civilian airliners are equipped with a collision avoidance system called TCAS. However this relies on radio signals from transponders which are fitted to other aircraft. Naturally, anti-aircraft missiles do not have a transponder and do not advertise their presence.
Missile Countermeasures
Anti-missile systems that are available (example) are mainly intended to protect against small infra-red seeking man-launched air-defense missiles (MANPADs) rather than larger more sophisticated radar-homing systems.
Even these systems are not fitted to all civilian airliners, probably only to those that operate into airports where there is a current known risk of MANPAD use by terrorists or other armed factions.
Evasion
Civilian aircraft are not designed for high-G evasive maneuvers and in any case, the missile does not have to strike the aircraft, it detonates nearby based on a proximity fuse and the resulting explosion and high velocity fragments will do enough damage to result in the destruction of the target.

You could also add that most airliners only have a TCAS built-in, which does not actively scan with an own radar but use signales emitted from other TCAS or rransponders. Missiles do not use transponder technology, so the only device capable of displaying approaching items cannot display it.

I know it's not strictly evasive, but I wonder if you could comment on radar jamming technology in your answer?  It seems like it would fit in that list...

@JayCarr: As far as I know radar jamming requires huge amount of energy, because you have to produce signal so strong that it overdrives the detector in the missile head. So radar jamming is normally only provided by special purpose aircraft like the EF-111. Because the illuminating radar signal does not carry any information that you could jam by just broadcasting noise like radio jamming does.

I know this is a bit of a silly question, but were the conditions just right, could such a missile approaching from the bottom of an aircraft be detected by a radar altimeter? If yes, under what circumstances? What is the rough resolution?

@HaroldCavendish: It seems likely to me that a radar altimeter is designed to filter out responses from objects smaller/faster than a slow-moving planet.

This recent article on CNN is very informative and covers most of what you're discussing.
In brief, commercial aircraft don't have any reasonable means to detect an incoming missile, which is likely to be travelling at supersonic speeds.
Even if they could detect it, commercial aircraft are already flying near their limits with respect to altitude, max-speed and min-speed.  So there is very little they could do to evade a missile. (Perhaps counter-intuitively, aggressive maneuvering will actually make it easier for the missile to hit them.  Maneuvering will cost speed and/or altitude, and the missile can easily outperform a commercial airliner in terms of turn rates)
Equipping commercial aircraft with anti-missile measures is technically difficult, very expensive, and ultimately of dubious value.

Air Force One has some anti-missile technology (details are classified, I'm sure). I think it can spew flares to confuse an IR seeker, but who knows about radar.

@David Richerby:  I think you're right.  My earlier estimate (based on news stories that said a missile could go faster than 1-mile/sec) was awfully optimistic.  I don't know what the true speed is, but its likely less than 4,000 MPH.  Sorry.

@PhilPerry Air Force One is a military aircraft so it outside the scope of this question.

@DavidRicherby: Yes, but being based on a B747, it would have the same (or quite similar) flight envelope to a typical commercial aircraft, as opposed to something like a B-1 or F-16.

@DavidRicherby: Israeli airlines do equip their planes flying to risky regions (mainly Africa) with infrared counter-measures. But these provide some protection against "MANPADs", not large missiles.

Airliner shootdowns by projectiles known or suspected to be more sophisticated than a Stinger or Strela are rare even among a fairly short list of shootdown incidents. The only two I can find are Iran Air 655 (shot down by the U.S.S. Vincennes during the Iran-Iraq War as it was mistaken for an F-14) and Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 (shot down over Ukraine with an SA-5 by mistake during a military exercise). All other airliner shootdowns in history were either by an intercepting aircraft, or are known or suspected to have been MANPADS in the hands of paramilitary or terrorist forces.

It's possible for a pilot to see a missile's trail provided that the missile is fired from an angle where that trail could be seen out the window, however it's pretty unlikely. Commercial aircraft are not typically fitted with any missile warning or defense systems, so a pilot would have to be looking in the right place at the right time in order to spot it. The pilot would also have to know what he/she is seeing, and recognize the threat.
If the pilots of a commercial jet spotted a missile early there are some things they could try:

Climbing: some missiles are shorter range, getting higher could put the aircraft out of range
Evasive maneuvers: While commercial jets are not generally thrown around they can pull some Gs. There's a slight chance that some jinking may cause a missile to lose lock. At least a pilot could try and put less critical parts of the airplane closer to the missile. If a missile explodes off the wing-tip it the airplane has a better chance of survival than if the missile explodes next to the fuselage. It's certainly worth a try as many of the older missiles out there aren't particularly reliable
Reduce infrared signature: Although there are plenty of radar guided missiles out there these are generally the province of militaries, or better supplied revolutionary groups, so the most likely scenario for an airliner being attacked is by hand-held infrared guided missiles. There are a lot of old and less sophisticated SAMs out there, which are easier to fox. A pilot faces with one of these could turn the aircraft so the wings block the engines' heat signature from the missile, and possibly reduce engine power. An aircraft at cruising altitude would not be at risk from one of these though, so this tactic would not be of any help

Realistically a pilot of a commercial jet is unlikely to spot a missile before it is far too late to do anything about it, if he/she spots it at all. So while it is within the realm of possibility that an alert (and lucky) pilot could evade or mitigate the damage from a missile, it's a long shot at best. A commercial jet targeted by a modern, radar guided missile designed to destroy fast, nimble targets is unlikely to survive.

Most missiles can probably keep up with 2.5G manoeuvring (typical limit for airliner). They are designed against fighters that will be trying much more against them.

The Buk missile system that shot down MH-17 is a semi-active (radar transmitter on the ground, receiver in the missile) radar-guided missile. Radar cross-section can be somewhat reduced by turning appropriate side to the radar, but it would not be sufficient against the powerful targeting radar employed by this system.

@JanHudec The plane doesn't have to match the missile's acceleration to beat it.  The missile is going much faster, the same angle of turn means a lot more Gs for the missile than the plane.  Even in a fighter it's iffy, though.

@LorenPechtel: The missile does not have to match the airplane's angle of turn either. It however needs higher acceleration the closer it is, so the evasion manoeuvre has to be done at the last moment. With less manoeuvrability that moment gets shorter. If it exists at all, because these missiles have proximity fuses, so you have to evade them by certain distance, not just avoid them hitting directly.

The USAF has long since moved to smokeless missile engines.

So have Russia for the most part, some older missiles may have a visible trail.

I am a weapon system designer/systems engineer and scientist by background.
As far as I know civil airlines all have identification transponders. Normal radar surveillance would be able to access the identity of the aircraft and then decide what to do. This is of course fine for air traffic monitoring systems unlikely to be in the possession of a small militia. As other's have said the weapon system itself will neither respond nor interrogate a target plane.
These days there is no honour code to force people to tell the truth or stand in the open when fighting a war. Even if a plane were entering a threat area sending out a clear signal saying I am a civil airliner, the force under threat would be foolish to believe it.
The primary means of safety is for air traffic control authorities to advise about the location of war areas and for airline operators to protect their planes and passengers by avoiding them. Whatever the root cause of the conflict in Ukraine, it was for Malaysian Airlines to avoid the area just in case one side had active anti aircraft missiles.
Surface to Air Missiles are a very desirable weapon famously used to retain (defend) captured territory - US missiles were used by Israel in the six-day war, now it seems the Ethnic Russian forces in eastern Ukraine are using Russian air defence weapons.
I won't be flying Malaysian any time soon.

But do military aircraft normally send a signal that they are actually a civilian aircraft?

"I won't be flying Malaysian any time soon." You'd better add to that almost every airline that flies from western Europe to south and south-east Asia, since almost all of them were flying over that part of Ukraine.

IIRC, and I may not, there was a warning issued (NOTAM) for the airspace, but not a TFR. Malaysian Airways chose to ignore the warning. So did other airlines. MA just got unlucky to be 'chosen' as the target. Now, there is a TFR, correct?

In short, the answer is almost certainly not. Surface to Air missiles capable of reaching the heights commercial air traffic flies at usually travel at a speed above the speed of sound, often surpassing mach 3. That means the missile is capable of reaching the height of common jet airways (30-35,000 feet) within ten seconds.
Although the missile leaves a visible exhaust trail, as others have mentioned, the pilot's field of view is mostly restricted to a cone in front of the aircraft. Add to this the speed of the missile, and the likelyhood of it approaching from beneath and to the side of the aircraft, visually identifying it is very unlikely.
A commercial pilot's options with regards to evading a SAM missile are pretty much nonexistent. The airplanes are not equipped with countermeasures (IR flares or chaff), and the speed and maneuverability of the missile far exceeds what the aircraft is capable of safely doing. Hollywood would have us think putting the aircraft into a dive is enough to put a missile off its tracks, but actually evading a missile, even for a military aircraft capable of much higher speeds and sharper turns, is usually dependant on active countermeasures in addition. The missile does not even have to hit the aircraft, they are designed to explode a short distance from them, spraying them with shrapnel that penetrates vital components.

Can a civilian aircraft pilot see a missile coming?

Around little more than 1% chance on takeoff/ascent phase up to flight height. (line of sight & missile trajectory won't intercept)
Around a 1% chance during stable flight. (line of sight & missile trajectory won't intercept except changing corridor and corrections)
There is a better % during descent/landing phase in case of head attack (line of sight & missile trajectory will intercept most likely but it's not a good position for evading. As a plane goes lower on landing - mobile complex could be used - no reason to spend expensive high range missile)

Chance to spot a missile is also better in air-craft with low windows in pilot cabin. Missiles are generally fired ahead to prevent flight from increasing range by flying away. So one may imagine a missile coming in usually at about a 45 degree angle ahead and from below and calculate chances for a pilot to spot it.

If these missiles can be detected, can the pilot take any evasive measures?

This depends on amount of passengers it's designed for and current load.
Less passengers means smaller weight, better maneuvering capabilities, more thrust per kilo of weight.

50 or more passengers - no chance, except by a miracle. (such a craft is loaded with passengers, luggage, post, goods and is "stuck" in the sky to make a comfortable flight)
about 25 passengers - some chances to try to do something, but unlikely to evade
12 civilian passengers or less - one may bargain
Small civilian jet and a pilot with a military background - there is an exact % chance could be calculated depending on missile system.
same goes for stunt pilots on appropriate plane. (missile systems just not designed to target these types of air-crafts too small, not much heat generated by the engine = more chances to lose aim)

Although, the first problem is in place. Pilot probably won't see a missile in time to react.
p.s. Someone wrote about "buk". These systems are distinguished easily by two or more paths left in the sky. Yes, two or more missiles per flight. So as we go back to the question, the second part: if you try to evade the first missile the second one specially designed for this case.  Typically two or four missiles are used in such old systems like "buk". Amount of missiles per target and percentage of success shot is open information.
That is why I gave so low chances.

thank you for improving your answer. As a general suggestion, it would benefit from links to sources of some of the claims made (e.g., 1%? based on?). Also, I have the impression you have inverted the use of larger and smaller than, use words instead of symbols, where the latter are not needed.

@ksiv I editted it a bit, if you disagree with my few edits, feel free to roll back your answer.

@Federico. As for correctness of percentages in my response they as  insane as the question itself. The 1% here is imaginary number as any other. You see even head of military affairs can not give any sane number since some case of shooting  different types of civilian aircraft is insane. it's useless data. If defense forces or  secret services of some country decide to shoot a civilian air-craft ( and my strong personal belief - they do it if needed) they ll make an order and it ll be performed.

Not with enough time to react. In clear weather, the average ability to spot another plane in the air unaided (no cue as to relative bearing or altitude) is about 7-10 miles, and as few as 3 miles for small craft. Professional military pilots with exceptional eyesight can improve on that but even they rely on their own radar, their wingmen and AWACS to alert them of other traffic.
So let's assume the best, and say you could spot a small craft like a fighter at 10 miles, and notice when it had fired an AMRAAM missile. By the time an AMRAAM's motor has cut out, it is travelling Mach 4, about 3,045 mph. That's 0.845 miles per second; it would take just under 12 seconds for the missile to reach you, fifteen at most accounting for the arched flight path and time to accelerate. So, assuming you knew the missile had been launched, you have fifteen seconds max to locate, track and maneuver to avoid it.
That assumption that you even see the missile launch is a pretty big one; U.S. fighter pilots have excellent vision, usually the 95th percentile or better of the U.S. population for visual acuity, and still rely on a battery of detectors to notify them of radar sources including from radar-guided missiles and their shooting aircraft.
One of the big ones is the Radar Warning Receiver or RWR. Most civilian aircraft do not have this system but it actually would not be out of the question to install it on a commercial airliner (the AN/APR-39 RWR system costs the military about \$170k per plane; that's a drop in the bucket to a Boeing 777's \$320 million sticker price); it is independent of the aircraft's own radar systems, and consists of four radar detectors to provide localization direction and strength, a computer processor to identify the likely aggressor type based on the radar pulses detected, and a flight instrument display to show the results to the pilot. With such a system installed, the pilot would get a warning of a radar lock and incoming radar-homing missile including relative direction, even if the missile were beyond visual range. Upgrade to a full Missile Approach Warning system and you can get missile speed, distance, relative altitude and time to intercept information.
The pilot would use this information to place the weapon "on the beam" (directly to his left or right) which forces the missile to use up its energy turning to a constantly changing intercept point. Then, as the missile closes in, the pilot would execute a max-G turn in the direction of the missile, forcing it to turn even tighter to intercept, hopefully tighter than the missile is able to turn thus falling behind the aircraft.

Speed of the target aircraft is not the problem; a fighter jet cannot execute the necessary turning maneuver at high speed anyway because it would overload the airframe (and pilot). An F-16's "corner airspeed" is around 320 knots, easily within an airliner's performance envelope.
What the airliner is not capable of is a 9 G-force turn. Normal flight maneuvers for an airliner attempt to maintain 1G. The airframe is only proof-tested to a "load factor" of 1.25 times its MTOW, while its theoretical maximum loading factor based on design specs is only 1.5x MTOW. So even empty of passengers and cargo and light on fuel, the maximum G-load the airframe would likely withstand without the wings collapsing would be somewhere in the 2-3G range. Missiles can easily pull 30-40 Gs, so even given that they're moving much faster (and therefore the forces needed to turn them within a particular radius are higher), an airliner stands little chance of evading a missile unless it was poorly aimed and at too close a range to correct itself. In that situation the missile would have missed before the pilot knew it was there.
So, overall, the only reason a pilot would need to be able to detect an incoming missile is so he knows when to pray. Without flares or chaff to help spoof the missile (which add weight that would only be used once in 50 blue moons) the chances of evasion are slim to none, and even with countermeasures, a target that big moving that slow needs a big distraction:

RWR Radar warning receivers can help detect if the aircraft is being tracked by a targeting radar and if the incoming missile is an active type, it is possible for RWR to detect this as well. There are counters to this such as frequency hopping and spread spectrum radar, so it is also possible that the targeted aircraft remains unaware.
Aircraft can be fitted with launch plume detectors which sense the IR or UV from a missile, either at launch or during flight, these again are not foolproof.
With respect to jamming - consider the home on jam (HOJ) technologies, where the incoming missile uses the jamming emitter as it's target, making the jamming vehicle vulnerable to attack, several missile systems employ HOJ, such as the A-88 HARM and the AIM-120 AMRAM.
Whether any aircraft has the ability to evade a missile depends on many variables, but mainly boils down to how much energy the incoming missile has i.e. burn time on the propellant or kinetic energy if the propellant is exhausted and the same for the aircraft, hight, speed, thrust and the manoeuvring envelops for the two, which means radius of turn, amount of G, sustained G. Civil airliners don't really have high G capabilities, if the pilot were to spot the missile early and the distance was great, turning and running in a shallow dive with a max G turn just before impact might, if the missile has very low energy, work, but these systems have a very good probability of kill against large targets with relatively poor manoeuvrability.

The question was about civilian aircraft.  What civilian aircraft are fitted with RWR Radar?

It's not out of the question to install an RWR, they're only about $170 grand which is a small fraction of the cost of a commercial airliner. The problem is the pilot could do very little with the information, without chaff, flares and the ability to stress the airframe several times the average design load without it collapsing.

According to this report, it is possible:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/hs_finnair_pilots_report_dramatic_missile_near-miss_almost_30_years_on/7457577
The pilots of a DC10 flying from Japan to Helsinki in December 1987 claim to have seen a missile approaching while crossing the Arctic ocean, but it detonated 20 seconds before it would have hit, by their estimation. The incident was apparently covered up at the time.

Missles are way too fast for a commercial jet to take evasive maneuvers even if it was capable of it.  Korean Air 007 in 1983 is a perfect example of pilots not knowing about missiles.
They strayed into Soviet Airspace (unknowingly) and the pilot that shot the plane down suspected it was a commercial plane built by Boeing but shot it down anyway.  He fired two missiles 2 seconds apart.  The detonated 50m from the rear of the aircraft. The first one tore through 3 of the 4 hydraulic systems.  The plane was still flyable (as the data recorders prove), the second missile tore through the fuselage causing a decompression (not explosive decompression).  One of the flight crew was able to radio that they had decompression.  Unfortunately, because the plane was already crippled with the hydraulics being out it spiraled down into the ocean in Russian territory.
It wasn't until 1993, after the fall of the USSR, that the truth finally came out.
There is absolutely no way a commercial jet aircraft has any chance of evading a SAM of any kind.
The MH-17 was hit by a Soviet-built missile, however, Malaysian Airlines KNEW the area was a conflict zone and should have flown around it, not through it (like the other airlines were doing).

Everything except the first sentence seems to be irrelevant for this question.